An Act of War?
 

It seems that today UK forces have taken part in limited attacks on Libya in co-operation with French and American forces.

As a supposed democracy, I wonder what mandate the govt belives they hold to commit British forces to military attacks against another soveriegn state?

Nobody would deny that Gaddafhi is corrupt and sometimes brutal. As the British state see's itself now as the apparent protector of the ordinary people of the Middle East, perhaps we will also use military force to prevent Saudi from committing atrocities against its people?

Or maybe we'll just keep selling them the weapons that they use to do it.

_

After Iraq, after Afghanistan, when will we ever learn our lesson?

Genocide

The Canadian PM, too, has given the green light for Canadian forces to shoot upon Libyan forces violating the no-fly zone.

Is this an act of war? Basically.

It's being conducted under a U.N. resolution. Canada (among other nations) has a dark history of what can go wrong under U.N. resolutions.

Sure this can be seen as an aggression against a sovereign state, but the worst-case scenario is far worse. There is no indication that Gadhafi will respond to anything but force right now. It's at least in the best interests of vulnerable civilians for these international forces to be prepared to at least enforce the no-fly zone.

Of course, the no-fly zone business is likely the tip of a very big iceberg.

I am not trying to say that I support Gaddafhi, or that I think force is always wrong

But surely a democracy requires some kind of mandate to use its military?

This isnt a sudden attack.

I think I just get upset with the hypocrisy... what are war crimes in Libya are basically unreported in Saudi or Pakistan...

If Ethiopia get upset with Somalia and go and kick the shit out of them, no one talks about no fly zones to protect a Muslim govt (which ought to be better than the civil war that was there before) from an airforce of 90's MIGs.

Fair enough, if its Russia doing a bit of regional bullying there is nothing we CAN do... but Ethiopia isnt... its just there's no oil, and no political interest... so the dead there we just mourn rather than try to defend.

_

Libya is not in my mind a simple case of the govt forces killing civilians, but a genuine civil war.

If civilians are being targetted then the best tactic is the one the US used to protect the Iraqi Kurds from Turkey in the last gulf war. Turkey steamed in ready to "secure their borders" and the US dropped in troops between Turkey and the civilians... and as strong as the Turkish army is they arent going to fire on US troops...

libya is complicated because while there are tribal divisions the fact is that the rebels have relatively light weapons almost entirely from members of the military who've gone over to their side and they are not in the main trained. so it's an assymetrical situation, a massacre in short. on ethical grounds, that isn't acceptable.

except, apparently, sometimes when it is.

why was there no clamor for a no-fly zone over gaza exactly?

i don't get it. i mean, if the arguments about military power being used on civilians is a real argument.

and i kind of support what the international community--whatever that really means---is doing to stop gadhafi.

but still...why was there not a no-fly zone imposed over gaza again?

why was there no fly zone over Somalia?

strange, isn't it?

let's leave aside the obvious realpolitik matters. they're self evident---there was no compatible action about gaza because the united states under bush 2 would not have allowed it. period.

i wonder the extent to which the consensus follows from a shift in media paradigm that's happened across the coverage of egypt--so something very new that's happened very fast one effect of which has been to open a space that actually treats north africa---and the middle east---as inhabited by human beings with aspirations not that different from those that allegedly animate people to the north.

just a theory.

the ironic thing is that Qazzafi is calling the attacks unjust.

like it's real justice to slay your own people.

let him have it.

I think the UN was just upset because no one can settle on a way to spell Muammar's name. In the end they just said "fuck it.. send in the war planes!"

I'm just glad the UN is finally doing *something* *somewhere* to protect people from slaughter.

I'm sure there are people in the US gov that wanted to do this in Iran...

I bet this has more to do with Gaddafi and oil than helping armed protestors or stopping a civil war by breaking it up. I bet that UN air power will be used to help the rebels.

...and then what?

get Bremer in to set up a government? we all know how that worked out in Iraq.

I'd like to see the back of Mu'ammar AlKazzafee, but who's going to know how to govern after 42 years of dictatorship rule?

Saddam or Mu3ammer El Qathafi? which one would you prefer?

The UN probably realizes its in the best interest of the entire region for these protests and popular uprisings to continue. This is what people have been waiting for and the opportunity can't be allowed to just fade away.

If they didn't act immediately the rebellion would have been put down and the region's peoples would have been discouraged from doing the same thing in their own countries. They need support at their back and that's what they are getting.

Recrimination can wait.

otto....I saw that all over the right wing blogs yesterday. I would suggest that you can make that comparison when Obama authorizes 100,000+ ground forces into Libya.

As much as you might like to compare the action to Bush's invasion of Iraq, I would suggest a comparison more to Bush I.

faux news opionistas are all about "obama is a follower not a leader" presumably because he didn't follow the glorious path of cowboy george and his confederacy of dunces--in part because of the results of the glorious path taken by cowboy george and his confederacy of dunces which made it impossible politically and militarily---even if it had been a sane option---which it wasn't. and when the administration does act, it does so in a manner closer to bush 1---and the integrity-optional set on the right tries to use it to vindicate cowboy george and his confederacy of dunces.

it's funny.

How conveniently they forget that Bush II never did have a UN mandate to invade and occupy Iraq.

In this case, I think the mandate and the US action is appropriate.

I dont think it will stop Kaddafi from continuing to attack and slaughter his own people, begging the question...what next?

wow, that bit of hipocracy was fully expected

Which bit? You mean how people were all against G. W. Bush going in to stop Saddam from gassing his own people but are totally okay with Obama stopping Gaddafi from shooting up his?

Or that they were against Bush invading Iraq based on lies but are okay with Obama's lies?

Or that they were against Bush's decision to heed the calls of dying Iraqis to step in but are okay with Obama's decision to heed the call of Libyans?

Or that they were against unilateral military action but are okay with a U.N. resolution?

So....what hypocrisy are you talking about? This isn't a rhetorical question. It's a request for clarification.

Wow. If we hadn't been attacked in Pearl Harbor, would we have continued to allow Hitler to kill millions of innocent people? We allowed Stalin and the Soviets to kill many and looked away, because we didn't want to confront.

MURDEROUS regimes must be stopped or the blood lies on all of us. If Khaddaffi is killing his people and Mubarak was killing his and the Iranians theirs and Hussein was his.... then end the regimes. If the UN is truly there to help the people they wouldn't wait till people started rebelling and MILLIONS were killed maimed or homeless. They would see there are serious issues and crimes against humanity done by the leadership and do what they could, up to and including military actions.

What's worse morally, allowing a leader to kill his people and "sanctioning" knowing it only hurts his people more than it will ever hurt that leader, or using force against force.

I am no war monger, I think we made up excuses that would sell the world on Iraq and did so to get to Afghanistan and have ignored the true issues over there. That some of those leaders are far worse than Saddam ever was.

We have the blood of millions of innocents on our hands for allowing those leaders to continue and not do anything exscept continue to buy oil and make that leadership richer than their country will ever be.

Evidently, you are prepared to sacrifice the lives of more young American men and women as a first option.

I am not.

i have to say that i support what the un is doing with gadhafi but it feels strangely to do it. it follows from (a) my visceral support for the revolutionary movement (and i think it's safe to call it that) that's gone furthest in tunisia and egypt--that's still underway, that's still uncertain and feeling its way along--which is linked to what's happening in yemen bahrain, saudi arabia and to a less extent (but still important) in morocco and algeria and jordan and (maybe, hopefully) syria and (b) the nature of the rebellion in libya, which i think should be supported politically and ethically.

i'm ambivalent about the neo-colonial powers being at the front of a military operation that's to protect the lives of people who are rebelling against the kinds of states that neo-liberalism (successor to the cold war) has wrought. and i don't buy the "ethical" arguments coming from any of these nation-states at all.

if they had been serious about the ethics, there'd have been a no-fly zone over gaza.

if they had been serious about the ethics, there'd have been intervention in rwanda in 1994. there'd have been intervention in eastern congo. the international community would have taken the idea of making an institutional framework that enabled international law and/or treaties and/or conventions have some teeth by providing them and enforcement capability.

the obvious problem would have followed for regimes like that of cowboy george and his neo-con confederacy of dunces for which taking a dump on the united nations seemed part of their strategy to be military hegemon in a post-cold war world. read pnac. it's noxious stuff, but it gives the line.

and the elephant in the room question about libya really is

what's next?

and....there's already criticism coming from the arab league about the initial attacks. the criticism is that the no-fly zone was supposed to be about stopping civilian casualties not substituting multiplying the sources of them. this is going to be a real mess, tactically. and strategically i am not sure that there is a clear objective here. is it to stop gadhafi or to force him to stand down? for france and the uk and us, it seems the latter. for other members of the community, it's the former. these result in quite different campaigns, obviously. so i don't know....it's complicated.



by the way have you noticed the re-emergence of the fried hardware school of war photograph over the past 24 hours? it's mostly blown apart tanks and partial view of charred remains, aspects of the video-game approach to war as a visual problem that we were subjected to back in the days when people in the entertainment-security complex still thought iraq photogenic as war goes, before the unfortunate realities kicked in and those same people decided it was better to pretend the iraq debacle didn't exist visually, to the greatest possible extent. hard to photograph that sort of unfortunate reality. but shit that's been blown up.....why that's the ticket. look at the front page of the ny times.

Well hurray for you and don't tell me I am prepared to sacrifice lives. My son and his half brother are of age. His half brother is on his way to Afghanistan, I don't want to see anyone die. Death is death, murder is murder whether by a despot or a fight to remove the despot. As for murder and death in war you have to take those risks you can't slap a wrist and say please stop. It won't happen. It's much like bullying, if kids see someone getting bullied then stand up and protect the one getting bullied. Because bullies don't stop once they get what they want from the original person they bully. They continue because it is a power rush. Same with these despots and dictators. They will continue to kill and rape and trash their countries until there is nothing and blame the US and the West until they have rebuilt a nice terrorism network brainwashed and dictated to believe that we are the bad guys. And we will be the bad guys the longer we ALLOW these rulers to get away with murder.

Until we as a people stand up and demand that OUR leaders do something to get rid of these idiotic asswipes, then we are as guilty as that leadership. If we continue to buy oil and protect those leaders as we did Mubarak for our own self interest we are more guilty. Because we know what is going on but turn a blind eye to it for self serving reasons. Same with China and Tibet.

It comes down to morals and ethics. Which do we need more of peace and leaders that spread the wealth or outright persecutions and civil rights violations in the name of sparing "US lives"? We are being freaking hypocrites.

We say we value freedom and that we don't want to see innocent people die. But in the end we don't show it. In that aspect, I can see why the rest of the world hates us. We aren't willing to sacrifice anything to save the millions of innocents in Libya, Egypt, Iran, China and so on. We instead slap a wrist and say, "don't affect our commercialized Utopia." Until WE make sacrifices and show the world we mean what we say about freedom and take out these despots and murderous leaders who care nothing about civil rights (as hypocritical as that may sound), we look like fools and are indeed such and every bit as guilty as those leaders, moreso for letting it happen.

Example: If I see an old woman getting raped and robbed, I'm picking up the nearest knife, gun, 2x4 I can to help her, as I dial 9-1-1. If they beat me down or kill me I can "live" with myself, because I sacrificed myself for what I believed to be right. If I turn a blind eye, my morals and ethics dictate that I am guiltier for letting that happen. I will have a hard time living with my conscience.

No respect for the rule of law. No declaration of war by the congress.

I guess it's OK since Bush did it too though. More wars more money for the military industrial complex. This is sickening.

Who's the dictator again?

Although I'm happy that the USA and UN is fulfilling its role in promoting stability and democracy in the world, I can't help but note that China oppresses and tortures its own citizens, but we're okay with that (primarily because they're a force to be reckoned with).

Turning a blind eye happens every day. You can chalk this up to being human nature, or you can blame the construction known as the nation state and the nationalism that keeps it secure.

The questions arising in this thread are unanswered because there aren't any easy answers. Why are we letting the Somali civil war rage on twenty years and hundreds of thousands of lives later? The Prime Directive?

We wish to look after our own before we look after others. We won't do anything of real meaning unless there is a direct correlation. Unfortunately, it's becoming harder to deny direct correlations---at all. Somalia has pirates. North Korea has nukes. Iraq has oil. Afghanistan has ties to international terrorism.

I guess is all comes down to risk vs. reward. What is the cost/benefit of ending the 20-year civil war in Somalia vs. preventing one in Libya? What is the cost/benefit of regime change in North Korea vs. Libya?

It's not all about morals and ethics and what's right. It's about what leverage you can apply that will most benefit you and your benefactors.

Military forces aren't charitable organizations. Geopolitics aren't known for their moral integrity.

---------- Post added at 01:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:02 PM ----------

Bush Sr. had a UN resolution for the Gulf War. Bush Jr. had one for Afghanistan. Obama has one for a Libyan no-fly zone.

Rule of law? It's a UN Security Council resolution. What more do you need? Did the Bushes need Congress declarations? I didn't think so if it's under the Security Council.

A purely emotional response, with no consideration at all given to the geo-political realities in Libya and throughout the Arab world.

I support the UN mandate for a no-fly zone. I would support the US supply arms to the rebels, either directly or through an Arab "ally"...because both actions are what the rebels have suggested as the means by which the West can support their cause. They have not asked the US to come "rescue" them.

Neither the rebels nor other Arab nations want an Iraq-style invasion and subsequent occupation of Libya by the US.

The sweetest victory of any revolution and one that has the greatest legitimacy for the long-term is one that is achieved by the rebels themselves...not by the invasion of a surrogate super-power.

We care because we have many interests in Libya. I don't believe we are there for the people anymore than I believe in flying pigs.

It amuses me how people in the "democratic" Congo rape infants and women and the un does nothing.

As baraka mentioned the Somali civil war has gone on years.

The US cares about the US cooperation.. They don't care about me or you or anybody else unless you're in the top 2%.

We supported Mubarak or whatever his name was. We train dozens of countries in excessive and sometimes tortuous ways. We backed Pinochet, we backed the Haiti coup (granted I do not know the story of this).

To think that the big politicians of today cares for us little people is more difficult than believing Santa is real.

I had so much faith in Obama. Fail we can believe in, indeed..

That sums it up nicely.

Reminds me of the Megadeth album title: United Abominations

Again, I reiterate, IF we say we love our freedoms and we KNOW there is someone killing innocent people, is it not up to us who elect our officials to stand against those murders and have the conviction to do so? Is it not us, as the electorate, to make sure we elect those who have those convictions? Are we not as guilty by association as those leaders? We look back on history and we had people asking our government the same questions about Hitler. Which we did basically nothing until Pearl Harbor. One of our biggest crimes was letting the USSR go in unscathed to Czechloslavakia, while their leaders begged us for help.

Granted we cannot police the world, but when a people in a country revolt against a known dictator and murderer such as Mubarak, such as Khaddaffi, and so on, then is it not up to us to help them? How long can we allow murder before our conscience and kharma comes back to haunt us as a people?

You say direct correlations are blurry. I say by having Mubarak come to the US and protecting him while he's ordering troops to kill people is a very direct correlation. I say slapping Khaddaffi on the wrist after several wrist slaps is direct correlation, allowing China to exterminate Tibetians is direct correlation. We are selling ourselves for 30 pieces of silver. Am I as guilty? I buy gas for my car so I can travel and buy groceries made in these countries because they are cheaper and more accessible to find than those made here. So, yes by association, I am allowing the murders to continue. Whether I want to or not.

It comes down to comfort and convenience. Am I comfortable walking or riding a bike 20 miles to get that which I need (food, clothing, meeting friends for a day out) well, healthwise I cannot physically achieve that. I have no choice but to drive or be driven using fuel purchased from these leaders that I cannot morally support in any way.

If we wanted to truly end these murderous tyrannies, then we would make examples of the leaders like we did with Saddam. Whether or not you agree with the war, the Iraqians are better off today as a whole. We could and should do the same in Libya with Khaddaffi, and so on. And we should have done it to Mubarak. If they rule by the sword, so shall they suffer.

My belief is we cannot keep selling our souls to these leaders and expect nothing will happen. We have 9/11/01's happen because we allowed these leaders to kill their people and lead by fear and then blame us. The people see that we buy their leaders oil/products etc. and do nothing to close the sweatshops and make sure the wealth is spread around to them. So of course in their eyes we are as guilty as their dictator and we, to them may be worse, because we allow it to go on and seemingly prop up those leaders by buying what they sell and sending aid that we know will never reach the people.

We cannot live in the now. That is not only unwise but will end up costing more millions of lives in the future. We have to look to what we can do to build a better safer future for ALL peoples. Somewhere down the road all of us have to accept responsibility and make sacrifices to spare the people being killed, by taking out these leaders one way or another. Until we do we can expect more and more hatred towards us.

It's the same if you see or hear a neighbor screaming for help. Do you turn a blind eye? If you do, (this applies to many liberals who turn blind eyes to their neighbors and let domestic violence and child abuse continue, because "it's none of their business and doesn't affect them until that person is, if ever, caught by law oficials) then how can you in good conscience be against the death penalty or war? Pacifism is NO NOT NEVER just letting others suffer because doing something right may burden you, it's just not. We are all on this planet together and if you value human life, dignity and freedom at all, you must fight for EVERYONE's right for those, or be prepared to face the outcome that you allowed and made possible.

It's even in our Constitution's preamble......

by allowing and supporting dictators and despots and countries like China to kill innocent people and not value human life at all, and to support that is in no way establishing justice, domestic tranquility, promoting the general welfare nor securing the blessings of liberty to our posterity. It isn't because when the people revolt against these leaders like Khaddaffi and Mubarak and so on and we sit here and do nothing or worse bring Mubarak/the Shah/Marcos/Baby Doc and so on over and give them safety and not let their people try them and pass their judgement on them then we are telling those revolutionaries "we don't care or support you."

Of course those people are going to dislike us and rightfully so. In their eyes and reality we supported those that literally killed family members, friends, countrymen of theirs and we turned a blind eye and appearred to them to support what their leaderships did. So in essence, the liberal left who think war is foolish and just a way to force our standards onto others for our own gain are screwed up and have no true sense of right and wrong. The conservative right that wants to pick and choose the wars we involve ourselves in are wrong also. You either handle Saddam and then take out Khaddaffi/Mubarak and so on or you do nothing. You can't cut it both ways. You either stand against these evil leaders that kill innocents or you let them go about killing and hope that their citizenry does it for you. It's one or the other. But economic sanctions and blah blah blah mean nothing to these leaders, they just take more away from their innocent citizenry and keep more for themselves and blame the US.

Either way, it's simple. Take them out now, stop supporting them and support the revolutionaries or continue supporting the loss of civil rights and murder and growing hatred towards us. In the end, one requires immediate sacrifice but may insure a better future for our posterity and the other builds hatred and animosity and bad kharmic mojo.

That's my opinion and views on all this. Am I willing to go to Libya and fight for the beliefs I hold, YES, in a heartbeat. Am I willing to make sacrifices that may make my life a little more inconvenient and harder? YES, if it means that countries like Libya and Egypt's citizenry have justice and in turn we develop a better relationship with those countries, I believe that in and of itself will build a better future and less scary one for future generations in this country. Are YOU willing to do that?

Our generation, those of us on this planet right now are just temporarily renting space. Our true duty is to better this planet for those who come after us, not leave bad kharma and burnt bridges to face. Because the sins of the father pass down, whether we believe it or not.

---------- Post added at 04:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:50 PM ----------

Why do you think they are buying American debt so fast? Because they care and don't want us to fail?

LOL...... no, so that we don't make waves against their little regime and we support them. So they buy our debt and export to us goods made in child labor sweatshops and we buy it up thinking we are getting a deal. The opposite is truer but we don't allow our collective consciences deal with that. What happens over there happens and we won't concern ourselves, who cares how many die if I can get a pair of Nikes for $160 instead of $200. Who cares if we ship jobs by the thousands to these people and in turn force more of our people into poverty because of low wages? Who cares if we lower our standards of living to match theirs? Who cares if as we watch their civil rights and human dignity fall to agressors so long as we maintain the facade of elections? Who cares enough to speak out and live what is right, even if it is somewhat less comfortable?

Simple? No.

Simplistic? Yes, and just a tad utopian in its simplicity, completely ignoring any geo-political consequences.

As I said before, neither the rebels nor any Arab country requested or desire a large scale US intervention.

The Arab League which had approved a no-fly zone is already condemned the broad bombing.

Arab League condemns broad bombing campaign in Libya - The Washington Post

Every time we bomb and there are civilian casualties, we only increase the animosity towards the US.

Suggesting that the Preamble to the Constitution is justification for precipitous action to take out a foreign leader or invade a foreign country w/o the consent or support of the people of that country is just bizarre.

I have many difficult with the French decision (and another countries) about attack against Libya. Ok Kadhafi is a dictator, Ok, he kills his people but why we make an intervention ? Why it’s right ? Why occidental countries are judges for the rest of the world ? Only because we have money ? I don’t like that and I have many questions in my head. A part, I’m not sure is a good solution and another of part I think world can’t keep a destruction of one people.
One day, I had ear this sentence (I don’t remember where) : nobody like a missionary army. I’m not sure Libyan people think foreigner army is the freedom. Even Libyan people don’t like Kadhafi, I’m not sure they prefer a war in their country by strangers. If I think as a human, even I dislike my government, I prefer an intern solution and I wouldn’t strangers in my country and maybe I return my feeling for help the dictator against foreigners.

No where did I want to imply arbitrarily taking out leaders just because we don't agree with what they are doing. My argument is that IF there is a rebellion of their people then we should do all we can to help the rebellion. IF they ask for us. I don't think we can bring Mubarak here and have him stay in the safety of our country while he's ordering troops to kill innocent people. That's taking sides. So the argument is why take the side of the opressor and not those that are fighting for what we believe to be right? If the Libyans want our help then we should help. If China's people stand up and ask for our help, then we should help. Until a nation's peoples stand up and say enough and ask others for help. Then we should stay neutral. Not continue to build up the regimes without making sure (through trade but again only the people suffer) the best way we can that those regimes accept UN mandates on civil rights and liberties. If not, then we stop trade and any aid. That simple.

It may sound impossible or what ever, but if you think outside the box and are willing to make those needed sacrifices, boycotting goods made in those countries. Then you are in part doing something. Vote for people regardless of partisanship that have the same basic principles you do, whether or not you believe that 1 vote matters. If enough people stand up for what they believe in change can happen. The problem is we have been brainwashed to live at a certain comfort level, we even have meds to make sure we believe we are in that comfort zone. Even in our "free" society we label those who are willing to sacrifice for their beliefs, as kooks or not "normal", and yet they show more true dignity and honor iun their beliefs than we "normal" people do who don't live our beliefs because we want that comfort and we don't want to be labelled in a negative way. We'd rather not cause waves and then bitch when we see the results of our not standing up.

That is what the US has done with the no-fly zone. The further step would be to supply arms to the rebels.

That is what they have asked for...not a massive US intervention or US ground forces.

Again, that is what the US has done by freezing $32 billion in Libyan assets under US jurisdiction and making it illegal for U.S. citizens or companies to do business with any of the 16 companies that control those assets that are under Libyan government control or ownership.

The freezing of those assets was the the largest amount of foreign assets ever seized in an American sanctions action....and the US is exploring ways in which those assets can be used to support the anti-government groups in Libya.

Good points.... I guess we have done all we honestly could then. So our consciences can rest easy now. And the citizenry have no right to be mad for the last 20 some years we have allowed this to go on and allowed that treasure chest to build up to 32 billion dollars.

We can look back and bitch about US foreign policy, both Democrat and Republican, for the last 20 or 50 years if that makes you feel better.

Or we can proceed in a manner that supports the interests and requests of the people of Libya as well as our own interests w/o taking precipitous actions. That means basing our actions not on past mistakes but on present geo-political considerations.

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread"....just a thought.

Obama's words on this issue and his actions lack clarity.

Is the military objective to simply assist with establishing a no fly zone? If so for what purpose?
Is the purpose of the no fly zone to save lives? If so, will prolonging a civil war save lives?
Is the purpose to assist the rebels in overthrowing Kadafi? If so, do they need more support?
If the rebels need more support, how much more are we going to give them? Are we committed to the end? Are we going to only provide support as long as it is politically convenient?
Who are the rebels? Are the rebels committed to a equal human rights for all? If not why support them?

So many questions with no real answers coming from the WH. And worse, we have a Congress and a press crops not demanding answers.

Say what you want about Bush, but one thing was certain - he was not ambiguous regarding the use of our military in Iraq.

right. 8 years of disaster in iraq because the war was launched with a 2 week "plan" and that's supposed to be some model of strategic clarity. sure.



this raises some interesting questions about the no-fly zone and ways that it might--just might--not result in another debacle:

How the No Fly Zone Can Succeed | Informed Comment

Iraq is a disaster, after 8 years?
Is it a better or worse situation today than it was 8 years ago?

Are the people of Iraq less worthy of revolutionary reform than those in Libya in your view?

Or, are you saying war is destructive, hence a disaster, and therefore in some circumstances like in Iraq, a necessary good that you feel has been a worthy endeavor?

Do you realistically believe any revolution can go according to some perfectly scripted plan that can be laid out in advance with no need for additional thought and strategy? Is that the standard that you would apply to Bush but not Obama?

Or, is the above just a throw away type comment, not to be taken seriously? I am going to assume it to be a throw away type comment. We know how you feel about Bush.

---------- Post added at 07:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:41 PM ----------

The key point regarding outside involvement in a civil war is will the outside involvement prolong or shorten the conflict? Your guy does not address this key question. As it stands the no fly zone will not shorten this conflict, ether more needs to be done or the UN should have not gotten involved.

All I can do is facepalm because here we go again.

Unfortunately, I was wrong in the other thread. This wasn't over in three days. Primarily because a no fly zone has magically become strategic bombing raids on targets other than anti-aircraft targets. Once the rebels decide to strength and advance in order to overthrow <insert cool spelling of Qaddafi here>, are we giving close air support? I fear the answer is yes, as small arms can't take out armor columns effectively. So, we now get three wars instead of two, if only for a few months. Aren't we pulling troops from war 1...or was it war 2?

And worse off, we are yet again mired in nation-state politics in a land with deeply intrenched tribal politics. Hey, at least war 1 and 2 has given us experience for war 3.

"Bob, I know that your tribe has been killing Fred's tribe for 1000 years, but could you please stop now and let Fred's family get elected into the new government and start telling you what to do? Mmmkay?"

And the question is, why? I thought we voted for Obama as an anti-war - pro-diplomacy, let's make friends - not enemies, get people to love us - not hate us, President.

what's happening in the empirical world is that there are significant divisions within---for example---the uk that split the government and military around how to interpret resolution 1973 over the question of whether actually taking out gadhafi is authorized. the government argues that it is. the military says it is not.

the united states is looking to turn over the task of co-ordination to nato in the coming days. the idea is plain--the united states is not going to play a central role in running this show. nor are they going to play a leading role in executing it. but they'll help. this is a job for shiny weapons systems, apparently. the administration's been quite clear about this.

there are real questions about what's going to follow the implementation of the no-fly zone. the juan cole article i posted above references kosovo as a possible way of thinking about how political organization for the rebels might come out of the process of establishing the no-fly zone. the distinctions and linkages are made pretty clear in the article---assuming you actually read it.

on the ground in the empirical libya, its already quite clear that the idea that there is a rebel army capable of moving directly against gadhafi in the wake of some incineration campaign run from the air using shiny jets and cruise missles is a chimera.

so the main problem is not tribal. that's a subset (to the extent that gadhafi's core of supporters are from his tribal group and most of those who oppose him---seemingly---are not----but here again, it's really quite hard to know for sure as most---if not all---of this inference is based on a location of "the revolt" in benghazi. but reality is far more fractured and complex than that. most realities are complex).
from the point of view of the un-sanction intervention of the international community, the main problem is that there's really no organized army to take up the space that the no-fly zone is supposed to open up.

there are already multiple requests for more and better weapons. i expect that the arms bazaar will be more than happy to oblige.
but that won't change the problems in actually moving against gadhafi's forces.

and i don't know what---if any---plan there is to address this. but it's already a hole in the "we'll be home in a matter of a few days once we incinerate some of these people" claims.

Obama was also all about Kadafi needing to step down. Kadafi responded that he won't. O.k., what's next? Not clear.

Humanitarian action to save lives??? What that really means is Kadafi employs a different strategy. Unless there is real support of the rebels a no fly zone is virtually meaningless. Strategy is not clear.

Not a central role??? Right! Hey, I own a bridge in Brooklyn, wanna buy it? What is "not a central role" two weeks from now, a month from now, 6 months from now? We have a nice vague concept here - "not a central role" - not clear.

Etc.
Etc.
Etc.

Did you read my post. The key question regarding outside involvement in a civil war is on the table. Do you understand the point, do I need to walk through it with you? Why ignore this question. it is like the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Everything else is like white noise until this question is answered. In most failed revolutions, the lessons of Sun Tzu are often not headed - in this case consider the quote below and shame on us for not providing real leadership in this regard.

Read more: Sun Tzu Quotes - Page 3 - BrainyQuote

The rebel cause was lost from the start, and they need more than a no fly zone.

---------- Post added at 09:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:55 PM ----------

The more I think about this the more it bothers me.

Think about it this way. You are a Lybian rebel. You get word of the UN rsolution of a no fly zone. You hear and see UN coalition planes and rockets hitting Kadafi targets. You think you have the support of the world and that they will come to your aid as needed. You fight on. You fight on. Then one day when things are at their worst and you wait for the Calvary...it doesn't show up...the slaughter occurs.

Either we commit, or stay out. Being half way in is wrong.

rb-

That really is my point.

Another billion dollars in military debt on our fancy guided KaPows!
Another few hundred dead muslims courtesy of American KaPow!
Another few thousand news reports showing the few hundred dead muslims courtesy of American KaPow!

And if we pack it up, <insert cool spelling of Qaddafi here> will slaughter them in a week.

If we stay, we do little more than keep the tribes on their segregated playgrounds...for the next decade. Oh good, another $300B in military debt in order to babysit tribes that can't seem to settle their differences without heads rolling.

If the rebels actually can muster enough people to make a run on the capital they will be slaughtered without close air support.

If the rebels actually take control of Libya, it's really just a tribal suppression swap...and now we get to bomb the people we spent $300b protecting for a decade.

cimmaron---i'm not at all sure about that last step. i see what's happening in libya as of a piece with what's happening across north africa and the middle east---very similar generational emphasis, very similar solidarities. it's not a repeat of the older-school tribal nexus. it really isnt---with the exception of the social base for gadhafi's regime.

the problems are organizational, really. now that this has become war theater--thanks to the hamfisted and brutal response of gadhafi to the rebellion--there's a lot of pressure on the council in benghazi--which is only a couple weeks old, fer chrissake--to become very quickly a full blown political opposition---which it isnt---its more an expression of opposition----and a military organization---which it isn't.

i don't think the rebels are a lost cause, however. i think they have very considerable support and it's short-sighted at the least to not see that (if you look at all.) but the situation is most curious and evolving extremely fast.

fact is that the only people who are certain about what's going to happen don't know what they're talking about.

and like i said, i support the action but with significant reservations. i support it because it prevented a massacre on a greater scale than gaza.

but it's a complicated situation.

i mean, clearly the europeans who buy 80% of libya's oil want to play with another group in power....

but i gots to go...

rb-

For the record, I was all for preventing the slaughter of the rebels. It's when the KaPows started going off in Tripoli that the UN coalition lost my support. Now, once again, the West will get to be the babysitter/scapegoat with very little gained and very little which could have been gained. Now that I see what they really wanted to do with the strikes, I think we (the US) should have sat this one out.


...edited...

I also hope you are correct, rb, and I am wrong.

No, it is not complicated. This is not a novel issue in world history. The outcomes can easily be predicted based on what people/groups/nations are committed on doing. Kadafi can defeat the rebels, the UN coalition can defeat Kadafi. If Kadafi remains in power eventually the Lybian people involved in the revolt will be killed. Seems pretty simple to me.

---------- Post added at 09:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:47 PM ----------

Worse, the anti-western world sentiment has already started:

Arab League head says wanted no-fly zone, not bombs | Reuters

Over the past month or so, a fluid situation in Libya amidst the outbreak of revolution across the region required a measured but fluid response, with the hope that a quick, however unlikely, result would follow in Libya.

Nearly a month ago (Feb 25) , Obama issued an Executive Order freezing Libyan assets in the US....an appropriate first step.

A week or so later, the West (France, Britain) sought a UN mandate, first securing the support of the Arab League and all the while cajoling China and Russia not to veto a Security Council resolution...an appropriate next step rather than rushing in with military force without a mandate (unlike Iraq, where Bush simply ignored the fact that there was no mandate).

UN resolutions rarely happen overnight, but are worth the wait to legitimize future actions, at least to some degree.

IMO, both the freezing of assets and the subsequent seeking of a UN mandate were reasonable actions w/o going overboard that brings us to where we are today and where the US message is clear...we did our part, now we expect France and Britain to take the lead.

Will that happen? Who the hell knows.

Already, the Arab League is backing down from its support of the mandate, raising a new set of issues.

We also should be a bit wary about who we arm, recognizing that some among the rebels and the Libyan National Council may have tribal goals rather than national goals...unlike the protesters in Egypt, Tunisia, etc. Do we really want to create another mujaheddin-like (afghan "freedom fighters" that later morphed, at some level, into the Talaban) force in Libya?

I, for one, certainly appreciate this approach rather than rushing in like a crazed cowboy with six guns blazing away.

---------- Post added at 06:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:57 PM ----------

Nothing is complicated in ace world...we know that.

Don't worry, I'm from the internet. I killed Gadafi with my mind, he must slumber forever in earth. Problem solved.

heh just thought you guys could use a little (if badly) comic relief.

for the record, the arab league spokesman said earlier this afternoon that the criticisms of the implementation of the no-fly zone centered on reports of civilian casualties. they are not backing away from supporting the action itself.

at the same time, most of the states in the arab league are in a curious position, supporting an action in support of rebels in libya---albeit on officially humanitarian grounds--who are carrying out the kind of revolt that most of the countries are either actively trying to suppress/avoid or are hoping to...so it makes sense, even if for that reason alone, that the organization would be particularly focused on the humanitarian grounds and violations of that logic.

russia on the other hand---which abstained in the security council vote---is echoing gadhafi's "crusader" logic. but putin has his own anxieties about seeing similar things in the central asian countries and---maybe---within russia itself.

For me, the only thing that muddies this action is Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was unwarranted. As such it throws into question just about any military action involving the US.

The difference with Gulf War 1 and this action in Libya is that the Arab League and the UN are on board and involved.

This stinks of politics. In war the concept of "we did our part" rings empty with me. When will we learn - do what needs to be done for a swift and decisive victory.

For the record Bush did not rush into Iraq and he got Congressional approval.

You appear to mock my comment, yet you take the position that Obama's has acted in a decisive and clear manner with a strategy to accomplish his goals. If Obama has acted in a decisive and clear manner with clearly defined goals - there would not be so many questions. It is possible that Obama his employing a strategy of deception against the enemy, but I don't see why that is needed given the inferior position Kadafi is in on the world stage. Kadafi is clearly isolated and if non-military actions could remove a dictator from power, this seems to be a perfect example of where it could work. I get using politics in this manner, but when using the military politics be damned - do the job, image be damn - do the job. Do the job or stay home.

Ace... this isn't Obama's goal. It's the UN's goal. The US and the other partners are there to carry out the UN's goals.

Do you believe the Arab League voluntarily supported the UN resolution? Or could it be that they supported the resolution realizing the potential consequences if they did not.

Do you believe the average ME person on the street supports the UN resolution? I doubt they do. The silence from liberals is deafening regarding some ME people motivated into becoming terrorists because of western involvement in ME country affairs compared to when bush was in office.

I firmly believe the Arab League is in support of this. It may be a mixed support rather than universal support but the support is there. There is no reason to think they would give support now when they have been so easy to withhold that support for other actions.

As for the people on the streets, again, I can't think the response to this is anything but mixed. However, given the recent push for change across the region, I can't help but believe that there is a lot of support for a) getting rid of Ghaddafi and b) a desire to prevent him from killing his own people.

Have you listened to Obama talk about this issue? Have you listened to Clinton? Have you listened to Rice? Did you note how the US voted on the resolution? Were the bombs and planes not affirmation of our goals? Perhaps, I just don't get the subtly in the point you make.

---------- Post added at 12:52 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 AM ----------

Time will tell.

Regarding the Arab League many currently in power will need the support of the west to stay in power. They will also use any opportunity to play both sides as opportunity arises, you can bet on that in my opinion.

As someone not immersed in the US mediasphere, I can say that outside of the US, this is being presented as a UN resolution made at the request of the Arab League. While the US is the big player it is not seen as the only player. In other words, this is not coming across as a US effort (regardless of how it is getting played out stateside).

As for the action itself, I would like to see more Arab League involvement. To my eyes, this cannot be won (whatever that means) with a no-fly zone alone. It will take ground support. That ground support must come from the Arab League and definitely not from some Western dominated coalition. Arab self-determination must step up and deal with this.

It would be even better if, the Arab air support took on a greater role in enforcing the no-fly zone. I know there are a few jets from Qatar and other Arab nations, but it would be better if they had the majority as well.

At present, this still smacks of Western Imperialism even if it's the right thing to do (and time will tell if it was the right thing to do).

I think you should make a new thread about this, and the claim that Dennis Kucinich thinks it is an impeachable offense...

I guess the bigger question is, would the congress play political games to deny military action to win political points? Would the congress be able to act quick enough since they are in recess right now? What would the consequences of talking up military action leading up to the vote, only to get denied do to the credibility of the US?

But, I agree that there should be some congressional oversight... but I would hope that they would agree to the same conclusion the UN did this time.

---------- Post added at 10:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 PM ----------

I also think the big "elephant in the room"/"Ron Paul" type of question that needs to be asked is, "What country is next that we will have to provide air support to?" Iran? Yemen? Bahrain? North Korea? Pakistan (if the 'extremists' start protesting...)?

well the reason noone cares what happens in saudi arabia.. is that they control a large portion of the worlds oil.

I'm glad you posted this, rb.

I've been doing everything I can to get infromation about what's going on, Libya's history leading up to today, international law, the UN Charter, what's historically been done (or, as is often the case, not done) in instances similar to this one, and what America, the UK, France, the UN and others have been saying about this. I was very, very reticent simply because, tbh, my country has a history of bombing the living crap out of things that shouldn't be bombed, particularly in my lifetime, but I keep finding myself, ultimately, backing the revolutionaries. All other things aside, I really want the people of Libya to succeed in their revolution, to overthrow their dictator and regain control of their lives. They deserve freedom simply because they're human beings, but they're earning it with their own suffering and deaths and the sooner the killing ends and Gaddafi is removed from power, the better. By my understanding, the UN sanctioned bombings and no-fly zone will help the revolutionaries.

Obviously it's very frustrating that we're being so selective in our support for revolutionary movements, and clearly there are ulterior motives behind our support, but the ultimate effect is helping brave people win their freedom.

since aljazeera was banned from libya a few weeks ago, im wondering how the libyan people are keeping abreast of the latest developments? state sponsored TV?

i can see how the show of support can turn against the allies quite quickly if libyan state tv is their ownly source of information and is only showing the deaths of innocents.

with the no-fly zone now enforced and the libyan troops in retreat from the rebel strongholds, what now?

is that not the aim of the UN resolution?

i have some bad feelings about this because there is no absolutes in any of the decisions being made. everyone seems to be going into this half heartedly. The allies, the arab league, even the libyan army. there's no unanimous decisions on any of the decisions.

I think Ghaddafi is playing things slowly, knowing that as long as he stays in power, he can afford to wait for this to fall off the front page before he starts his massacres.

The brits, americans and french can forget about their oil contracts if The Colonel stays in power. He needs to go, and he's not going out alive. If he's taken out, do we see the end of the Libyan army?

$31.5M worth of F-15E crashed overnight. Add that to the tab.

Opinions and views on this matter are being formed each day. the article below supports a couple of points, the Arab League has reserved a position where they can say the West over stepped what they approved and that the US is going to be considered the central "outsider".

Libya intervention threatens the Arab spring - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

I worry that Libya will become like Afghanistan:

Freedom fighters today....???? Tomorrow. I hope it all works out for the best.

for those that dont know about the history of the Libyan resistance to italian occupation, you may want to do some reading on Omar Mukhtar.

Omar Mukhtar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He's one of the most famous Libyans, and is a symbol of arab resistance and is considered by arabs and libyans alike as a freedom fighter in the face of imperialistic oppression. he withstood Mussolini for 20 years until his capture in 1931. Anthony Quinn even portrayed Mukhtar in a movie Lion of the Desert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


will it become like afghanistan? i dont think so. Libya isnt fighting for its homeland like the afghanis or omar mukhtar were. Nor is this an ideological war like the afghan/russian war.

Thank you for the information. The wiki was a good basic read on the man.

Not to nitpick but wiki has him born in 1862 and dying in 1931 "at age 73". 1862 and 1931 are 69 years apart.

this is an interesting al jaz report on scenarios for a libya future:


and this is a compilation of reports about what's happening now, information which is hard to really come by given the media ban. some of this is quite disturbing:

Pambazuka - Gaddafi?s overthrow: Telling the story online

I still cannot grasp the fact that this far into his presidency, the anti-war noble peace prize winner, hasn't ended the Iraq or Afghanistan war and is now getting us involved in another conflict.

It's been a couple days and I still am so mad I cannot think straight.

On a side note I think it's ironic yet awesome that Dennis Kucinich is looking for support from the TEA PARTY to defund this war.
As bad of a guy that Kadaffi might be, he pales in comparison to the hundreds of thousands we've killed in Iraq and Afghanistan this past decade.

Look at what we've become. It's so shameful.

Ghaddafi hasn't made a lot of friends in the Arab League. He has been fingered for financing an attempt on the life of the king of Saudi Arabia. He has ridiculed and mocked other members of the League. It's no wonder they are against him.

Add to this, a good helping of tail wagging the dog... The more the Arab street pays attention to the Libya issue, the less they may pay attention to their own corrupt regimes. This could, in the end, bite them in the ass.

The whole action is odd and there is still no clear idea who the opposition is in Libya.

Obama was never anti-war, samcol.

One suggestion from Wolf Blitzer today was to use the $31 billion that Gaddafi/Libya has in US banks to fund it...

i think it's funny to read conservatives trying to appropriate the language of being anti-war. they endorsed the afghanistan war. the reason the united states is still there has a lot to do with the incompetence exercised on conservative watch. they endorsed the iraq debacle. and that is the shameful conservative fiasco that it is. and now they're all blah blah blah war is horrible?

right.

When most conservatives support a war they give specific and clear reasons for the support. Being against military action in Libya is not a contradiction to supporting military action in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Also, conservatives have the ability to processes current and new information in order to make decisions in the context of what is in the nation's best interest going forward. The loopy argument that if you supported "that" war you have to support "this" war...or if you supported a deficit then you have to support a deficit now is pure idiocy - and the folks on the left engage that argument all the time and now you seem to do it also.

---------- Post added at 02:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:46 PM ----------

I have respect for Kucinich. He is consistent and acts according to his beliefs. He is a man of conviction. I wish all politicians acted in a similar manner.

So would you say that the conservatives who aren't supporting the action in Libya are asking themselves WIIFM?

that's a straw man, ace. i haven't engaged in any such argument. i'm merely pointing out the surreal spectacle of manly man conservatives tripping all over themselves to sound all anti-war when the obvious fact of the matter is that the only reason they--and you---oppose the action in libya is because it is happening under the obama administration.

you other "argument" comes about "clarity" and "simple-mindedness" isn't an argument at all. it's a statement of consumer preference. you go shopping for the sentences that are used by a given political regime to market war. you prefer the simple statements preferred by republican regimes to speak organically to their simple constituents.

so really, it's no more interesting than knowing that sometimes you might like raspberry jam, and sometimes strawberry so long as nobody tells you that strawberry is really different from raspberry. then you don't like it.

In a purely cynical context, yes. I am sure my answer either confuses or allows for incorrect conclusions, but I will add that it is my belief that human behaviors are motivated by self-interest - and I don't pass any moral judgment to that, I expect it.

In a broader context, it is not a secrete that Europe and France in particular has a direct interest in Libyan oil and in part has motivated their interests in taking military action, the US does not share that direct interest as well as having high priority issues needing our focus. Many in the US are torn regarding military involvement in Libya including, conservatives, liberals and middle of the road people for various legitimate reasons.

---------- Post added at 04:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:51 PM ----------

Really. You think I and others determine support of war based on Obama??? I think you fail to see the difference between observations of Obama's leadership and a personal view of our objectives. Obama has not yet clearly defined the military objective. What he says compared to what is needed has yet to be reconciled.

Anyone who has spent any time understanding me knows that is false. How you think you can conclude that is beyond my comprehension - not to mention that it is purely irrelevant to the topic in this thread.

I assume you don't consider yourself to be a "wingnut", so you tell us what is in our "national interest" in this context.

more ace shuck and jive. first you post a string of nonsense about the "lack of clarity" from the obama administration concerning libya then you get called on it and you are shocked---shocked i say---that anyone would think that you can't distinguish marketing material from real-life, even though throughout your "objections" you referenced nothing but marketing material. but you "know the difference" and "anyone who tried to understand you" would know that you do---except that you write as though there is no difference until that poses a problem for you and then you deny that you did it.

it's lame.


the problem with the libya operation from a strategic viewpoint is already becoming clear. it's like somehow the militaries woke up this morning and realized that the airstrikes aren't stopping people from getting killed in misrata, in zahwihya, etc by gadhafi's militias. it's like some strange repeat of the first weeks of world war 1 except with lots of incredibly expensive shiny weapons systems and a healthy dose of techonology fetishism (keep those budget lines open) to delude people into thinking that they'll be home by christmas.

for example, despite the pounding visited upon kadhafi's air force and armor in open ground, the rebels haven't been able to organize a counter. shocking. they aren't a military. they're facing a military.

and here is the source of much of the ambivalence i think most people feel when they look at what's happening---assuming that one accepts the premise of the action (there are arguments both ways about that---the only stupid position is that the action was wrong because obama is the one who authorized it---you know, the wingnut position.)

in le monde this morning, the headline is: revolution or war.
those are the options: either there is a general uprising in every city in libya---and soon----that changes the terrain of the game or the path seems quite clearly open to ground troops in libya. from there things will get ugly fast.

so the united states is looking to avoid getting hoovered into the bloodbath.

and gadhafi seems to be counting on the idea that when it comes to taking the next step the west won't have the stomach for it.

so it's a game of chicken. a nationalist dick-waving thing.

that is about as clear as it gets in this situation.

except that lots of people are dying. that's clear.

rb-

The only justified criticism I have of Obama regarding the Libyan campaign is that he did not put this to a vote in Congress. I feel it was the right thing to do when US military actions are going to occur. I was so mired in work at the time, I wasn't paying attention and had naturally assumed that a Congressional vote had occurred prior to US KaPows. I was taken aback when I found out it had not.

I also believe it to be a strategic blunder for Obama because now the success or failure of this operation lies squarely with him. His opposition can say "Well, I didn't even have a chance to oppose this." How many dozens of times have we read a conservative retort that has said "Well, the Congress voted for Iraq." Obama denied himself the share-the-grief vote, and that was a big mistake.

possibly. as i've said, i'm ambivalent but in general supporting the action up to this point largely on stop-the-massacre grounds. but the scenario i outlined above seems to be accurate, to my unhappy not-quite-surprise.

my assumption about the action so far as obama was concerned is that much hinges on making a quick shift into the relative background and moving this off from being a third us war in the region---this despite the differences (un sanction, there being actual reasons to do them, etc.) which would circumscribe the action differently than a conventional war would. but i confess that i have not been paying much attention to congress recently as they seem mired in dealing with tea party posturing about runaway expenditures while at the same time authorizing a budget proposal that does not cut a single military procurement line.

that said, i have little doubt that if the united states finds itself hoovered into the ground game that this arrangement will have to change. whether the administration will have a stronger or weaker case to make at that point is anyone's guess.

keep in mind that much of the limitations/problems for the united states is caused by two entirely unnecessary bush people wars. just saying. the wages of catastrophe, the ways in which the bush people remain a gift that keeps on giving...

Yeah, but Congress voted for Afghanistan and Iraq. :D Sorry, I couldn't resist.

true. but the infotainment system was far more---um---neo-fascist in orientation at the time. that is, co-ordinated centrally around a primitive us/them game. and cowboy george operated from a state of emergency. and congress just fucking rolled over, particularly given the shabby presentations of infotainment they got on iraq. so they failed in their oversight functions twice and now there's complaining that they've not been consulted.

at the same time, the need for consultation grew out of the vietnam debacle and the church act. so it was to prevent another debacle....but you're right: congress did approve afghanistan (debacle) and iraq (debacle). sorry. couldn't resist.


at the same time, it's obviously a problem formally speaking. what i really dislike about the obama administration---well, one of the things---is that they inhabit the imperial presidency taken/staked out by the bush people (on dubious legal and historical grounds) quite contentedly. this bugs me.

in terms of the situation in libya, however, things are simpler: the situation required action and as it is that action came about as close to too late as is possible to be without exactly being too late.

like i said, there's ambivalence aplenty here, something for everyone to not quite feel great about.

but a massacre did get at least slowed way down.

Right, it's my problem that I think Obama has acted in a manner that lacks clarity. All is well, please ignore my ramblings.

The hypocrisy is getting absurd, and to see people defending this is sickening.

To see liberals supporting this war is astounding to me. I guess war is good as long as your guy's in power.

The only thing I can think of is that the left enjoys this for the simple fact that it breaks US law while following the UN's orders. I know they are fans of big government and the UN. The United States laws are old an archaic and should be ignored apparently.

My avatar feels more accurate every new day with the Obama administration. He's the joker because he was anti-war yet we are still in Iraqistan and now he began a war with Libya. He's fascists for not letting congress make the decision.

Biden says impeach, can't say I disagree.

Not only that but worse we have people here making irrelevant racially charged comments "...ace shuck and jive..." in response to sincere and honest points of view and questions. They seem to be willing to do anything as a diversionary tactic. I only hope the one who made reference to "shucking and jiving" was unaware of the history and how offensive it is. They really need to take a pause and think about their positions and what they say.

It is interesting that in the recent Gallup poll on the issue, more Republicans support Obama's actions in Libya (57-31) that Democrats (51-34)

Americans Approve of Military Action Against Libya, 47% to 37%

It is even more interesting that you give credit to conservatives for "the ability to process current and new information in order to make decisions in the context of what is in the nation's best interest.." but criticize Obama for doing the same thing and being deliberative and measured in the US response rather than simply charging ahead w/o regard to the best interests of the US.

---------- Post added at 06:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:17 PM ----------

I suspect the the liberal or Democratic support is limited.

Dont confuse support for a no-fly zone with support for a war. I suspect many Democrats, like myself, support the limited actions to date and even a continued, preferably lesser, role of the US in maintaining the no-fly zone; I wouldnt support further US intervention with ground troops.

As to the hypocrisy, the only members of Congress who can claim that are probably Kucinich and Paul.

sam...you've been consistent.

ace...not so much. Your double standards are appallingly transparent.

ace, dear, i am fully aware of the genealogy of that statement. i dont regard it as particularly loaded racially, though it is a term that originates with african-american slang of the 60s and 70s. it refers to a lack of integrity, a willingness to dance around, to try first this then that, to bob and weave. the way you argue here is nothing but that. it is not a great concern to me if it offensive. i certainly only use it because it captures your m.o. so well. if it bugs you really, change your m.o.

for the record, my positions is pretty close to what dc outlines above. i'm ok with the action as it currently is unfolding...with ambivalences. i assume that congress is being consulted now about things in case the us does find itself hoovered into ground actions...which i wouldn't support. it's not at all a matter of rah rah obama...it really is a matter of supporting the air action because it stopped a massacre.

and i'm saddened by the new fighting in gaza. note that there's nary a word about the use of military technologies on civilians/loosely organized/barely not amateurs.

Me three. I am absolutely, 100%, totally and completely against the United States going to war with Libya. I'm against us invading, I'm against us overthrowing a government, I'm against us nation-building. I'm hesitantly okay with supporting the no-fly zone with full UN backing. That's it.

Today, NATO dispatched war ships off the coast of Libya to enforce an arms embargo.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/SID-3BC3A...news_71726.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...20046160.shtml

What makes it significant is the fact that while the US is participating, it is not taking the lead and that Turkey, the only Muslim member of NATO is participating as well.

IMO, any action that can potentially limit the expansion of Kaddaffi's attacks against his own people and, at the same time, not be perceived by other Arab nations as US intervention, is a positive action.

LOL and I'm called a racist. Never in ANY way shape or form have I ever said anything like that here, publicly or in private. Then for the same person to say this:


All I can say is wow, the hypocrisies abound here. "I don't believe in guns, I'm a pacifist" "Bush was an evil war mongering ass" "I'm ok with bombing and if ground forces have to go in.... I may have to disagree."

Way to take stands for your beliefs..... wow. At least people know where I stand and I back it up maybe not as poetically as some or as well versed but, ya know..... I'm just a low educated white boy from Ohio, who has done nothing but serve in the US Navy (as I watch benefits we were promised cut mercilessly, while in the past few days we've spent how many MILLIONS bombing a country? Already fighting one war, we don't seem to want to truly end. Guys in OUR US uniforms DYING in a very covered up war. There's no Bush to blame for the covering of Afghanistan..... so who is responsible for basically leaving our men there with a pud in their hand and starting a new war? My son's 1/2 brother deploys soon and there is no plan or even a sign of pullout. Where's Obama even talking about it? Why are not people outraged when these brave men come home only to find their benefits cut and VA hospitals filled with over RX'd painkillered vets????????

And you are going to sit there and be AMBIVELENT????????? and assume Congress is being informed????????? the same Congress that votes to cut Vet spending and increases in Social Security??????? LOL.... let me have some of what is in your pipe.

As a vet, I should have been eligible for benefits when I had the brain infection....... but nope, I was left to fill out paperwork and have my credit blown to pieces.

Sorry to threadjack, but once I started typing the blood started boiling. Hypocrisy pisses me off more than anything. Stand up for your beliefs or show how weak you truly are.

pan...feel free to question my beliefs. I have no problem with that and I wont whine and moan that I am being attacked.

I will say that unlike you an ace, I dont see complex issues in simplistic black and white terms and I try to base my opinions on facts not emotion or ideology.

I don't whine or moan when attacked. But I had the same guy starting on me every freaking post. And for the past how many years been called a racist because I spoke out about Obama (who, I will say has done a most passable job possible given the circumstances he has inherited). I am still not drinking his Kool Aid, but given how the GOP is shooting themselves in the foot and showing their true colors, I would probably vote to re elect him, Hell may even join his campaign next year depending on who is running.

I stand my ground and vote for the person I believe to be best for the job. That's why in 2000 I voted for Nader.

I'm not going there...its pointless.

But I stand by what I said about letting your emotions rule...very utopian when it comes to suggesting that lives are at risk in Libya and we should prevent it at all costs...disregarding the fact the people of Libya do not want the US to fight their war for them on the streets of Tripoli or Misrati or that their are huge negative implications with a greater US role.

I dont like the fact that the air strikes to establish the no-fly zones have lead to civililan deaths. An even more forceful or aggresive US presence would result in even more deaths and more anti-US propaganda. Is that really what you want?

---------- Post added at 09:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:53 PM ----------

IF you believe that the US should be doing more than what we have done to-date in a measured way -- from freezing assets to working for a UN mandate, then leading the establishment of a no-fly zone with the suggestion that the US lead would be temporary, and lately, taking a back seat on an arms embargo -- then we simply disagree.

I dont want the US taking a larger role, under any circumstances.

If you think its hypocritical, that's fine too. I think my position is based on sound policy considerations.

pan---your post doesn't make sense.

i'm sorry you were screwed over by the va. i really am.

I recall writing that conservatives, liberals and middle of the road people all have legitimate reasons for being against American military action, and the opposite is true.


My criticism of Obama on this issue has been specific. We disagree if your position is that Obama has been deliberate and measured. It is becoming clearer to me that Obama acted in a naive manner. It seems he was "suckered" into a - you go first - trick. The only reason we should - go first - if it is because we are committed to going all the way. it does not appear that we are. And like I wrote previously, if we have given false hope to people risking their lives, shame on us.

The reason I have no respect for Obama is perfectly illustrated in the manner in which he is handling the Libyan conflict and you have to agree that it is different than the way Bush handled Iraq. I respected the way Bush handled Iraq, hence there is no double standard on this point. Outside of my comments on how Obama has handled this matter, you don't know how I feel about the underlying issue, your conclusion is based on your assumptions. You have been intellectually lazy, you can do better.

---------- Post added at 03:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:47 PM ----------

Then you are unaware.

This was well put.

What is shuck n jive? - Yahoo! Answers

However, to Black people it is worse, and conotes these kind of images:


The above is simply FYI. I point it out because in my mind it illustrates that often in your smugness what you present here is not thought through. Either you intended your personal attack to be racial or you were ignorant of the connotation.

Even during Obama's campaign this came up as a controversial issue, that got alot of news coverage:

Hillary Supporter Cuomo: Obama Tried To "Shuck And Jive" With Media

To anyone who has read the exchanges between me and roach in this thread,

Tell me what you think. Tell me if I should change and if so what.

---------- Post added at 03:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:06 PM ----------

And it actually worse. It is beyond my comprehension how Biden and Reid got a pass for saying stuff about how Obama is o.k. because he is one of those clean blacks or a black who doesn't use a "negro" dialect. Then if a person has a legitimate problem with an Obama policy they are among the first to use the race card. People not knowing I am black, have even called me racist because I have no respect for Obama - and I am blacker than he is - both my parents are black.

---------- Post added at 03:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:13 PM ----------

Pan, I understood your post and it does make sense. I also recall at least one series of post where you were being deemed racist. I did not agree. Some here seem to have short memories.

Wait a minute...Ace, you are black? I'm just surprised after all of these years of interacting that it never came up before this. It doesn't make a difference to me other than it is intriguing as to your political upbringing. One has to admit that black conservatives are a rarity.

ace.

i suppose you could dress up the term in order to twist it around to mean thing that it typically doesn't.

but hey, you imagine there's some cheap point to be scored here.
and you're trying to do it in a way that simply confirms---again---the reason i used to term in the first place.

from the same urban dictionary defintion you bit above (google is easy):

It has been adopted into non-Afroamerican speech, with a reference to behavior adopted in order to avoid criticism.


you know full well that is the accepted meaning of the term and has been for quite a long time.

cheap shit, ace.

keep at it.

It came up before - it is an interesting dynamic.

I was raised in a blue collar community my father and most other men were union members, and Democrats. I was a Democrat through college, but started to change my views. A key turning point was when I studied Miton Friedman and his book Free to Choose. When I started working in the corporate world I became Republican, after starting my own business I became Libertarian and then because of my concerns about national defense I returned to the Republican Party and actively supported Bush.

What is interesting is that consistently 90% of Black voter vote for Democrats - but when you discuss issue by issue with them they tend to be more conservative than liberal.

---------- Post added at 03:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:46 PM ----------

Right. In your mind what I shared has no validity. In your mind I am simply trying to deceive you. In your mind I am just playing games for the sake of playing games. Etc. Etc. Etc. I got that. Again, what I ask you to do is ignore me and my posts. On this issue, do your own homework unless you have already come to the conclusion that you know everything that needs to be known on the issue.

let me know if there comes a point at which conservative whining about their own victimization gets boring even for them and the topic of the thread can be resumed.

thanks.



o what the hell.

this is an interesting viewpoint. the excerpt in english, from the guardian blog:

the original exchange from le monde (in french):

http://www.lemonde.fr/libye/chat/201...ens_id=1481986

among the other points goya makes is:

---it would be a good thing were some of gadhafi's armor to defect to the rebels rather than merely getting incinerated in open ground because the rebels are hopelessly under armed.

--there is activity off the radar directed at helping the rebels become a coherent force militarily, but that will require time.

--so the objective is as stated above, to force a stop in the combat by continuing to incinerate people with the idea of negociations because

--gadhafi's capacity to react has been underestimated to this point.

the last claim surprises me a little---i wasn't aware of any scenarios as to the effect of the aerial attacks.
certainly nothing on the order of the wolfowitz clown-time scenario that made it plausible for the gullible to see iraq as a short action.

it's obviously difficult (and the interview says as much) to use air power on troops that are close-in to civilian targets....so there are obviously limits to the current mode of operation.

You took this off topic with your irrelevant, non-specific, out of context personal attack. You are incapable of a rational exchange with me, hence I suggest that you forever and always ignore my posts. Each time I initiate a direct response to one of your posts it is specific and in the context of the thread. That is the difference between what you do and what I do, get a clue. I truly wish someone you respected would have the courage to give objective feedback.

ace, look....the most interesting thing you've written here in my memory anyway was your response to cimmaron above. you dropped the aceventura mask and just wrote stuff based on whomever you are behind the ace-mask.

as ace, you have a problem. you can't handle discussion. you prefer monologue, really. but for you, "rational" discussion means a discussion in which your starting points are accepted.

and behind roachboy, i see argument as a game. if you hand me weak premises, i'll go after them. i don't have a lot of time. i don't have the patience to deal with shitty argument.

the way i see it, you don't know the rules of argument but you play anyway and act as though it's everyone's fault---my fault---that you don't. but maybe it isn't.


**now** are we done with this?

I don't find comparisons of the Iraq War to the no-fly zone in Libya very useful.

The Saddam Hussein regime was viewed as a potential threat to American interests. The lead-up to the Iraq war consisted of fabrications and propaganda. Invading Iraq was arguably a unilateral decision. The purpose for invasion was regime change.

The Libya situation is not a unilateral invasion built on propaganda for the purpose of regime change in response to a potential threat to those outside of the country: it's a U.N.-sanctioned, multi-state, military intervention based on actual circumstances; namely, the state-sanctioned attack upon civilian populations in civilian areas within Libya. The purpose for military intervention in Libya is to stop a massacre.

So yeah, I don't find the comparison of what Bush did with Iraq very useful when looking to Obama regarding Libya. I don't even know why anyone would want to go there. Obama is more justified in his decision to comply with the U.N. resolution than is Bush in his decision to...do what he said or he thought or we implied he was aiming to do in Iraq. It's a ludicrous comparison.

The only thing I can see as being a comparison worth noting is the angle with regard to Congress and whether they needed to go to a vote to comply with the Security Council resolution. Is a vote necessary in this case?